Monday, April 3, 2017

Robbie Travers : The "Fake News" Censorship Industry

The "Fake News" Censorship Industry

Name a single person or
organisation you trust to control your speech. Whom would you trust to
control what you can read, or make decisions on what is true and what is
false for you? Whom do you trust to police what you think?

The German government thinks it knows exactly who should be the
arbiter of truth and what articles you should be allowed to post.
Itself!

This would lead to a monopolisation of the media industry. One or
two large platforms would dominate the public debate; fringe voices
would be ignored or cast aside.

Who is to police the police? Facebook, caught out, already had to
dismiss those compiling their trending stories, when it was revealed
that they had a runaway political bias and were routinely suppressing
(conservative) material with which they did not agree.

The whole censorship industry is open to abuse; presumably, that is what censorship is for in the first place.

Name a single person or organisation you trust to control your
speech. Whom would you trust to control what you can read, or make
decisions on what is true and what is false for you? Whom do you trust
to police what you think?

The German government thinks it knows exactly who should be the arbiter of truth and what articles you should be allowed to post. Itself!

After a bill was proposed by German lawmakers, which threatened fines of up to 500,000 euros ($522,000) for publishing "fake news," Facebook decided to use an organisation called Correctiv, described as a German fact-checking non-profit organisation, to decide whether reported stories are "real" or "fake."

This system would then encourage individual Facebook users to report
other users' posts to Correctiv. Facebook would then have Correctiv
label any of the articles "fake news," as they see fit.

Even then, this proposed response by Facebook was not harsh enough
for some German lawmakers, who want articles deemed to be fake by the
government to be removed
within 24 hours, or else fine Facebook 500,000 euros. That move would
undoubtedly lead to individuals abandoning Facebook for other social
networks, or more probably, Facebook abandoning them. German attempts to
police the Facebook could end up useless; to many, the plan looks
suspiciously like a money-making stratagem.

A centralized "speech police" would also create a monopolisation of
the media industry. One or two large platforms would dominate the public
debate; fringe voices would be ignored and cast aside.

If there is an organisation created to adjudicate "truth," how does
one criticise the organisation? Surely an organisation with no mechanism
to be criticized or left with the "honour system" to criticise itself
should raise alarm bells.

News sources dismissed by governments may often speak the truth. What
if they are right? Valuable news may come from outside the mainstream
media.

At a time when the established media are not particularly trusted to begin with, how could censorship not
harm faith in the news even more? In the event of any dispute, smaller
companies would not be able to afford expensive lawyers to fight the
German government. How long until the war chests of social media users
empty, compared to the virtually inexhaustible resources of the German
state?

Furthermore, how do all these policing networks ensure the neutrality
of their staff, who are supposedly determining the accuracy of
articles? Who is to police the police?
Facebook, caught out, already had
to dismiss those compiling their trending stories, when it was revealed that they had a runaway political bias and were routinely suppressing (conservative) material with which they did not agree.

Individuals, without even inciting violence, have been wrongly
censored by Facebook. A former Gatestone writer, Ingrid Carlqvist, saw
her account suspended; Gatestone writer Douglas Murray's articles were censored from Facebook; and this author had his Facebook blocked for questioning Black Lives Matter. All the banned authors challenged politically correct revisions of events.

The whole censorship industry is open to abuse; presumably, that is
what censorship is for in the first place. What is to stop individuals
from stigmatizing an article multiple times? Algorithms and
sophisticated computer programs could silence articles, as well. New
information comes along, which changes statistics or facts that were
believed to be accurate at the time. All it takes is a single complaint
of "fake news" to tarnish a true article with that label -- putting a
stain on a journalist either out of political motivation, malice, or
simply by mistake. Even algorithms make mistakes. People would start to
wonder what they could report that would not be considered "fake news". Is that the kind of press the free world wants?

The German government could start fining, as "fake news," political
opinions it finds "inconvenient" -- a perfect way to close down
discussion.

No government should be deciding what is worthy and what is unworthy
of being published. News organisations often publish stories that
governments might think is not in the national interest. It is much too
easy to declare a story "fake" because it might not suit a political
interest. That is the method used by dictatorships; it is correctly
called authoritarian abuse.

The best way to counter fake news is to let people speak freely,
check the facts, then present a counter-argument. The marketplace of
ideas will decide its fate.

Robbie Travers, a political commentator and
consultant, is Executive Director of Agora, former media manager at the
Human Security Centre, and a law student at the University of Edinburgh.

Subscribe To

Followers

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, religious tolerance, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.